Sunday, March 14, 2004
Name recognition
I'm not going to get in a fight about Sony. I don't like them, or Microsoft, because they aren't video game companies. I do buy their systems. I buy their games. I enjoy them. But any company that can survive in an industry without any creative talent scares me. If Nintendo ever drops out of the hardware business, we would be stuck with two companies who try to control the industry with their money rather than their talent.
But that all seems pretty obvious. No point arguing that.
What I do want to talk about is what makes a system succeed. You would think, after playing video games obsessively since I was 4 years old, I'd have some grasp of what makes this industry run, but when it comes down to it I'm really not sure. I do know that I wouldn't let my 4 year old waste his life playing B17 Bomber, though.
Back in the day, technology was hardly a factor. The NES trounced the Master System even though it was light years behind it in the graphics department. Nintendo did have just about every huge franchise, though. And it looked so cool with its sleek grey paneling and futuristic trap door loading mechanism.
Then along came the Genesis. In 1989 Sega introduced a spanking new system and a bad ass mascot to move it off the shelf. And, while Nintendo made a huge push forward when they finally released the SNES, remember that, depending on the sales figures you trust, Sega actually outsold Nintendo in the 16-bit generation before they got all crappy add-on happy.
Power? Apparently, people still didn't care in the early 90s. SNES had Mode 7 - that cool, scalable graphics effect in Super Mario World and the pseudo 3D world in Super Mario Kart. SNES had a much larger color palette, 32,768 colors to only about 512. And the Super Nintendo had the far superior controller. 3 buttons? What was Sega thinking?
But Sega was "cool". Sega had the "Genesis does... you can't do that on Nintendo" song. Sega had a sleek black system. And, probably the most important thing of all, Sega had John Madden Football. Of course, the SNES had it too, but it was never quite as good as the Genesis versions. So, when all was said and done, the two systems ended up in a virtua tie.
In 1995, a new company entered the war and everything seemed to fall right in their lap. Nintendo opted for carts and essentially dug their own grave. The move made Square, suddenly more worried about making movies than games, jump to the CD technology Sony was pushing, and single handedly won the war in Japan. Sorry Nick, Final Fantasy was already a main stream success before FF7 came out. Japan may have the worst taste in gaming in the world, but they know a good thing when they see it. Sega one upped Nintendo by shooting themselves in the foot: trying to beat Sony to the market, they launched the Saturn 4 months early, surprising consumers and retailers alike. And, they forgot to add a 3D processor. Oops. Sony, who didn't commit any major errors, was almost handed the crown.
Power was once again a non factor, do you sense a trend here, as the much more powerful N64 fell behind the underpowered PSX from the get go.
For all the great games released on the N64, the only reason it was able to stay relevant came down to the 4 controller ports in the front. As good as Ocarina and Mario 64 were, it was the 4 player chaos of games like Mario Kart and Goldeneye that kept the system on the cool radar.
What is still hard to understand is how Sony won exactly. Was it just because it used CDs? Yes, it had more games, but that was hardly a factor last generation when the SNES and Genesis were neck and neck. Was it just because it was considered cooler? Was it just because of marketing? Was it because games like Mario made the N64 seem like a kiddy machine whereas games like Resident Evil made the PlayStation seem more adult?
To me, it's the only real reason why it could have won. Yes, the PlayStation had more games, but anyone can admit that most of the games were crap. When all is said and done, both systems probably had the same number of quality games released every year. But the quality on the PlayStation was rated T and M and tried to hook the older crowd in.
This generation follows a similar trend. PS2 comes out a year before the GC and Xbox. It's underpowered but still looks good. Like the PSX, it's lacking in any real hardware innovation. MS brought a hard drive and built in broadband support this generation and Sony brought... firewire? Anyway, it still has more games, but most of the great ones go multiplatform anyway. But, it's cool. It has the marketing. And, it has the name recognition. Look, you can even play your old PSX games on it. What it lacked in multiplayer goodness and graphics, it made up for with Grand Theft Auto.
The only other factor that has pretty much lead to all the overall winners each generation is when the system is released. NES came out before the Master System. Genesis before the SNES. PSX before the N64. And, of course, PS2 before the GC/Xbox.
If everything comes down to name recognition, though, wouldn't that mean Nintendo would still be running things? And if it came down to cool, wouldn't Sega still be here?
So, if it all comes down to when you come out and marketing... where do games fit into the equation
But that all seems pretty obvious. No point arguing that.
What I do want to talk about is what makes a system succeed. You would think, after playing video games obsessively since I was 4 years old, I'd have some grasp of what makes this industry run, but when it comes down to it I'm really not sure. I do know that I wouldn't let my 4 year old waste his life playing B17 Bomber, though.
Back in the day, technology was hardly a factor. The NES trounced the Master System even though it was light years behind it in the graphics department. Nintendo did have just about every huge franchise, though. And it looked so cool with its sleek grey paneling and futuristic trap door loading mechanism.
Then along came the Genesis. In 1989 Sega introduced a spanking new system and a bad ass mascot to move it off the shelf. And, while Nintendo made a huge push forward when they finally released the SNES, remember that, depending on the sales figures you trust, Sega actually outsold Nintendo in the 16-bit generation before they got all crappy add-on happy.
Power? Apparently, people still didn't care in the early 90s. SNES had Mode 7 - that cool, scalable graphics effect in Super Mario World and the pseudo 3D world in Super Mario Kart. SNES had a much larger color palette, 32,768 colors to only about 512. And the Super Nintendo had the far superior controller. 3 buttons? What was Sega thinking?
But Sega was "cool". Sega had the "Genesis does... you can't do that on Nintendo" song. Sega had a sleek black system. And, probably the most important thing of all, Sega had John Madden Football. Of course, the SNES had it too, but it was never quite as good as the Genesis versions. So, when all was said and done, the two systems ended up in a virtua tie.
In 1995, a new company entered the war and everything seemed to fall right in their lap. Nintendo opted for carts and essentially dug their own grave. The move made Square, suddenly more worried about making movies than games, jump to the CD technology Sony was pushing, and single handedly won the war in Japan. Sorry Nick, Final Fantasy was already a main stream success before FF7 came out. Japan may have the worst taste in gaming in the world, but they know a good thing when they see it. Sega one upped Nintendo by shooting themselves in the foot: trying to beat Sony to the market, they launched the Saturn 4 months early, surprising consumers and retailers alike. And, they forgot to add a 3D processor. Oops. Sony, who didn't commit any major errors, was almost handed the crown.
Power was once again a non factor, do you sense a trend here, as the much more powerful N64 fell behind the underpowered PSX from the get go.
For all the great games released on the N64, the only reason it was able to stay relevant came down to the 4 controller ports in the front. As good as Ocarina and Mario 64 were, it was the 4 player chaos of games like Mario Kart and Goldeneye that kept the system on the cool radar.
What is still hard to understand is how Sony won exactly. Was it just because it used CDs? Yes, it had more games, but that was hardly a factor last generation when the SNES and Genesis were neck and neck. Was it just because it was considered cooler? Was it just because of marketing? Was it because games like Mario made the N64 seem like a kiddy machine whereas games like Resident Evil made the PlayStation seem more adult?
To me, it's the only real reason why it could have won. Yes, the PlayStation had more games, but anyone can admit that most of the games were crap. When all is said and done, both systems probably had the same number of quality games released every year. But the quality on the PlayStation was rated T and M and tried to hook the older crowd in.
This generation follows a similar trend. PS2 comes out a year before the GC and Xbox. It's underpowered but still looks good. Like the PSX, it's lacking in any real hardware innovation. MS brought a hard drive and built in broadband support this generation and Sony brought... firewire? Anyway, it still has more games, but most of the great ones go multiplatform anyway. But, it's cool. It has the marketing. And, it has the name recognition. Look, you can even play your old PSX games on it. What it lacked in multiplayer goodness and graphics, it made up for with Grand Theft Auto.
The only other factor that has pretty much lead to all the overall winners each generation is when the system is released. NES came out before the Master System. Genesis before the SNES. PSX before the N64. And, of course, PS2 before the GC/Xbox.
If everything comes down to name recognition, though, wouldn't that mean Nintendo would still be running things? And if it came down to cool, wouldn't Sega still be here?
So, if it all comes down to when you come out and marketing... where do games fit into the equation
// posted by Tom @ 12:17 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]